Court Overturns Murder Conviction

October 2, 1986|By JEAN DUBAIL, Staff Writer

A Fort Lauderdale man`s 1984 conviction for second-degree murder was overturned by an appeals court Wednesday because jurors were influenced by a newspaper article about his earlier conviction on the same charge.

The 4th District Court of Appeal ordered a new trial -- a third -- for Vincent James Cappadona, 38, saying jurors` knowledge of the article was ``an intolerable dilution of the presumption of innocence.``

Cappadona, owner of a Sunrise Boulevard shopping plaza, was originally convicted in 1981 of first-degree murder in the shooting death of pastry chef Mark Ladic, 24, after they argued over possession of a stereo.

That conviction was overturned when a judge decided Cappadona`s attorneys had done such a poor job of representing him that his constitutional rights were violated.

Shortly after Cappadona`s second trial began in November 1984, a newspaper published a story about the first trial. The article stated -- erroneously -- that Cappadona`s defense had been to deny any involvement in the killing.

During jury selection, three jurors said they had read the article. All three said they could disregard it when deliberating on a verdict.

Cappadona claimed during the second trial that he shot Ladic in self-defense. The jury nevertheless convicted him of second-degree murder, and Judge Robert Tyson sentenced him to life in prison.

Cappadona`s attorneys attacked the conviction on several grounds. The appeals court, however, limited its ruling to jurors` possible understanding that Cappadona`s defense had changed from the first to the second trial.

``The obvious inconsistency in these two positions could not have been lost on even the most naive of jurors, with the result that (Cappadona) was handicapped by a lack of credibility from the outset,`` Judge George Hersey wrote for the court.

The appeals court also noted that the jurors, during their deliberations, had sent a note to the judge asking whether Cappadona had been in jail since his first conviction and whether they could take that fact into account.